i enjoy your perspective; i am minister to college students actually, and i like the honesty.
but have you ever seen those websites that are devoted to "hating" one particular thing? like votefortheworst.com for american idol or survivorsucks for survivor. like, in the end i really have trouble believing that they truly dislike those shows. sometimes they watch them with more intensity and veracity than the casual fan.
in the same way i see that with sites like yours. i guess you could respond with "this nation is just over-run with these idiot religious freaks and i just have to speak up" -- but that is so un-true; christians are being fazed out day by day. hedonism is the new dominant religion.
anyway, just a thought. i am EXTREMELY critical of christians so i see your frustration (because I have tons of frustration). but why rest and focus in something that seems so stupid.
if you have told people that they have wasted their time on something a few times, why keep on doing it?
ps. just want your input: if life truly came from a single cell organism; where did this single cell get the power to reproduce itself?
Ben, "but have you ever seen those websites that are devoted to "hating" one particular thing?"
BTW, the blog title is hyperbole - you can't actually hate something you don't believe exists.
"christians are being fazed out day by day. hedonism is the new dominant religion."
We must not live in the same country?
"i am EXTREMELY critical of christians"
Aren't you one?
"if you have told people that they have wasted their time on something a few times, why keep on doing it?"
Because of a few reasons: 1) This is not like saying American Idol sucks. American Idol is a TV show, this is about rights and identity of a minority that people think it is right to vilify. 2) One of the tactics used by apologists is to make this very argument in order to get atheists to try and be quiet. It's a tactic to shut us up. I say that we should be loud and speak up until equality is achieved and people actually start using reason to think.
"ps. just want your input: if life truly came from a single cell organism; where did this single cell get the power to reproduce itself?"
It seems to be an emergent property. Why do you think that goddidit? What evidence do you have for that proposition?
hey again-- "BTW, the blog title is hyperbole - you can't actually hate something you don't believe exists." --> i figured, that's obvious, your hate rests on Christians and that was more what I was pointing out - we do exist therefore it makes sense.
"We must not live in the same country?" --> yes we do live in the same country. i live in the bible belt's capital really -- and the people who actually act like Christ are few and far between even here. yes, there may be a dominant "religion" but it really functions as a lame social club.
"Aren't you one?" --> Christian that is... and YES. that does not mean that I cannot have a HIGH expectation of the model that is poorly applied in churches and american culture.
"One of the tactics used by apologists is to make this very argument in order to get atheists to try and be quiet. It's a tactic to shut us up. I say that we should be loud and speak up until equality is achieved and people actually start using reason to think." --> alright man... i do not mind if you keep talking, shouting, etc... but once again -- it just seems like a waste of time. i really do not see how atheists are unequal in any manner or form. you have equal rights and ability to make your own decisions as much as anyone else. but to the same effect, reason is worthless in a world of chemical reactions. why does it matter? who care if people think the same way as you. i mean, if you just want friends who think like you, then i guess that makes sense.
"It seems to be an emergent property. Why do you think that goddidit? What evidence do you have for that proposition?" --> okay, yes, this reproductive property did come later (obviously) - but that does not explain how chemical reactions and reproduction became part of that cell's being. observing natural science, things are not moved by themselves; all of a sudden a chemical reaction pops up for no reason? and why do chemicals even react to one another?
"From chemical reactions in the cell.. the same way our cells reproduce. It's called metabolism." --> well, it's really the same question. where did it get this property? also, with metabolism comes catabolism - which breaks things down. which would seemingly destroy a single cell.
Ben - They think they are persecuted somehow in our society. Then when you say that they go, "I never said that!" Rather than actually try to earn their way to this (already existent) equality, they are determined to villify Christians. It's true what they say: There are two ways to become a leader; either earn your way there or step on the heads of others to get there. GCT has decided to try option #2.
Ben, "i figured, that's obvious, your hate rests on Christians and that was more what I was pointing out - we do exist therefore it makes sense."
Ah, I see. So, because I use arguments to point out why belief in god is unfounded and illogical and because I'm adamant about my rights as a citizen of this country (and as a human being) - and really because I don't believe as you do - then I must hate Xians. Do you know how bigotted that is?
"yes we do live in the same country. i live in the bible belt's capital really -- and the people who actually act like Christ are few and far between even here."
And, what does that tell you about the transformative power of Jebus? You can make excuses all day long for it, but the stark reality is that Xians are no more or less moral than any other segment of the population. Oh, and it's a no true scotsman argument BTW, as I'm sure your interpretation of being "Christ-like" will differ than other people's interpretations and will just happen to fit those people you approve of.
I would also point out the hyper-Xianized part of our culture that automatically regards everything connected to Xianity as good and everything else as suspect, where people can make crazy comments about the war on Xmas and be respected, etc. If you don't think our culture is biased towards Xianity, then you're living in denial.
"Christian that is... and YES. that does not mean that I cannot have a HIGH expectation of the model that is poorly applied in churches and american culture."
I suggest that you complain to them instead of me on that score.
"i really do not see how atheists are unequal in any manner or form. you have equal rights and ability to make your own decisions as much as anyone else."
Yeah, I have the same right to pay for things with your god on my money, to pledge allegiance to my country and your god at the same time, to not get voted into office because I don't share your god belief, to be able to be fired from my job for not believing in your god. These are issues of rights and inequality. I could also mention that the 2 acceptable prejudices in this country are prejudice against gays and atheists. Neither is morally acceptable.
"but to the same effect, reason is worthless in a world of chemical reactions. why does it matter?"
Why would you make such an absurd statement? Are you trying to make the absurd argument that reason can only come from god - thus trying to argue that only through unreason and illogical arguments (irrationality) can we arrive at rationality?
"i mean, if you just want friends who think like you, then i guess that makes sense."
Thank you for reducing a civil rights issue to the level of high school cliques. I'm glad that you can be so cavalier about the unequal treatment of your fellow citizens.
As for metabolism I will first point out that you've dodged the questions about your explanations and why you think that goddidit is a satisfactory answer. It is not and you can't defend it, so your tactic is to deny that any answer we have will work so that we will simply default to your answer. Yet, that's not how it works. Even if we had no clue how any of this happens, it would still be inappropriate to claim goddidit was a satisfactory answer.
Now, to answer the question, it seems to be a trademark of how these chemical reactions work. It simply is a property of the physical world.
Secondly, unequal rights is not the same as persecution. I suggest you actually look up the definitions some time. Of course, you could just continue to spout nonsense and talk about things that you really don't understand. I see you've chosen option 2 for most of the comments you've made, so why stop now?
"Rather than actually try to earn their way to this (already existent) equality..."
How does one "earn" equal rights? Do we have to be beaten by police officers during peaceful marches? Haven't we learned anything from all the civil rights movements of the last century?
Oh wait, it seems we haven't, since Xians have been at the forefront of unequal rights since the founding of the colonies here in the States. I would suggest that you actually look up the history of these things in our country, but that would require you to forego option 2 again, so I doubt you'll do it, and instead come back with "Dr. King was religious" or "Wilberforce was religious," or some other inanity.
To answer this very simple question, chemicals react due to their characteristics.
However, I find it interesting that you would display such an incredible lack of knowledge in the very topic you're demanding answers for.
I recommend checking out your local college or university, which will surely have classes on basic chemistry (so you can understand why, when, and how chemicals react with each other) and basic biology (which will likely be a pre-requisite to organic chemistry).
Once you have a basic understanding of the chemistry of the universe and of planet earth, we can go from there. This is not an attempt to be an elitist, but some things are too complicated to be learned from scratch in blog comment threads.
ethineethine, I think Ben has a pretty good question here. How did the cellular components necessary for cell division arise?
Metabolism? Chemical reactions? These seem like pretty simplistic responses. Could you be a bit more specific here? You seem to suggest that you have a very sophisticated answer in your back pocket, but you're not going to cast your pearls before swine. What would be your answer to a highly educated nonporcine guy like yourself?
(Yes, yes, GCT, whatever ethinethine comes up with here is far and away better than goddidit. Could we give that conditioned response a rest for a moment? I would still like to hear what ethinethine has to say.)
Ben: ... the people who actually act like Christ are few and far between even here.
The Christ character is, by and large, a fuckin' asshole, and the bible belt's certainly got plenty of those. Of course, it's got plenty of nice people too, but that's true pretty much anywhere ya go, eh?
"to not get voted into office because I don't share your god belief, to be able to be fired from my job for not believing in your god."
And how is it my fault as a Christian that you don't get elected?
And how exactly could you be fired from your job by not believing in God?
BTW, witholding rights from someone is a form of persecution. Believe me, I understand it quite well.
I believe you misunderstand Ben's point here. Showing gaps is not a way to automatically insert God into them as atheists often claim. The only reason the gaps get pointed out is to show you that you are believing by faith as well and not rationality as you claim.
Leo, "And how is it my fault as a Christian that you don't get elected?"
Because you and your Xian buddies are prejudiced and wouldn't vote for a non-Xian - which has wider implications on our culture which we shouldn't go into on a blog comment thread. Also, some states still have laws on the books that prohibit atheists from office, although I bet they would be overturned or ignored if one could get into a position to actually be elected.
"And how exactly could you be fired from your job by not believing in God?"
People have come under fire for being atheist just recently, like Hemant Mehta. Others have been fired, etc for not being Xian. It happens, and one could argue that it's not against the law.
"BTW, witholding rights from someone is a form of persecution. Believe me, I understand it quite well."
No, you don't.
"I believe you misunderstand Ben's point here. Showing gaps is not a way to automatically insert God into them as atheists often claim."
You mean as theists often claim, since this is a tactic that theists use often to try and argue for god.
"The only reason the gaps get pointed out is to show you that you are believing by faith as well and not rationality as you claim."
No, that is not the only reason, and it doesn't even serve that purpose. I don't hold a faith position here - I hold to the best available evidence. If you consider that to be "faith" and conflate it with the "faith" that you have for god, then you are either very confused or not arguing in good faith (no pun intended).
The structures where the emergent property was self-replication are called replicating polymers. The property emerges from a different chemical configuration from the previous structures of polymers (covalently bonded macromolecules) to the new configuration.
As far as is hypothesized, the new configuration of polymers resulted in nucleotides, the structural units of RNA. Some RNA molecules, called ribozymes, are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis. What is important about this is that it does not take a leap of faith: synthesized ribozymes have been observed self-replicating under lab conditions.
From there, a cell membrane would eventually be an emergent property (by the protobiont stage), as either a specific mix of chemicals that would help ensure the survival of the cell-like structure or a surrounding of sediment. The nucleus and membrane-bound nucleus would come much later. The survival of structures at each level of complexity is entirely dependent on the effectiveness of its configuration (much like a chemical form of natural selection).
What is important to understand is just how chemically simple these pre-cell structures are. Though obviously they are more complex than macromolecules, molecules, and atoms, they would have nowhere near the level of complexity of structures we would call cells. Though each level of complexity may add little bits and pieces here and there, it would take a very long time and very specific conditions.
Anyway, the best theorized chain of succession I've seen would be: atoms -> organic molecules -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> archaea/bacteria -> eukarote. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me, but it is tentative. Unfortunately you can't see molecules in the fossil record, which would give us a great deal of information, although as our technology becomes more sophisticated, we may eventually be able to extract that information from the earth.
Many of those steps, from chemicals to protobionts, may or may not be considered "alive", depending on which criteria used to determine what's alive (personally, I use 5 characteristics to define life, but other definitions may be even more restrictive).
Just pointing it out because it's interesting to me. Most people don't really know the criteria for determining life, so they may see a replicating polymer (or alternatively, a virus) and erroneously think it's alive.
ethinethin, “The structures where the emergent property was self-replication are called replicating polymers.”
Any guess as to the identity of those replicating polymers? To my knowledge no one has ever observed polymers of any kind self-replicating in an experiment. How would self-replicating polymers “emerge” from non-replicating polymers? “Emerge” implies “evolve.”You can’t evolve unless you have a means to replicate, and further you need a means to make changes in the polymer analogous to mutations in DNA in order to select variants.
“The property emerges from a different chemical configuration from the previous structures of polymers (covalently bonded macromolecules) to the new configuration.”
Again, the word “emerge” here substitutes for any known chemistry that could confer the property of self-replication on a non-replicating polymer. “New configuration” similarly has no meaning in terms of known chemistry. What is the “old configuration?” The reason you can’t be more specific here is that the polymers you speak of have only been speculated to exist. You can speculate all you want about the configuration of hypothetical polymers. Real polymers aren’t quite so adaptable.
"As far as is hypothesized, the new configuration of polymers resulted in nucleotides, the structural units of RNA. Some RNA molecules, called ribozymes, are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis. What is important about this is that it does not take a leap of faith: synthesized ribozymes have been observed self-replicating under lab conditions."
I don’t have a problem with ribozymes synthesizing RNA. However, I question the chemistry that gave rise to nucleotides that compose the ribozyme. Is there nothing more to say about this than a “new configuration of polymers resulted in nucleotides?” I think these pearls need a bit more polishing.
From there, a cell membrane would eventually be an emergent property (by the protobiont stage), as either a specific mix of chemicals that would help ensure the survival of the cell-like structure or a surrounding of sediment. The nucleus and membrane-bound nucleus would come much later. The survival of structures at each level of complexity is entirely dependent on the effectiveness of its configuration (much like a chemical form of natural selection).
“Emergent property” here again has no real meaning. A cell membrane is quite a complicated structure and requires very complex intracellular machinery to synthesize and maintain it. It doesn’t just self-assemble when you mix lipid with clay. You can use simple language to describe it in order to make it appear simple to produce, but that just makes a simple story. If you believe it, it is not because science supports that belief. Again, how do you make progressive stepwise changes in “configurations” so that selection occurs?
“What is important to understand is just how chemically simple these pre-cell structures are. Though obviously they are more complex than macromolecules, molecules, and atoms, they would have nowhere near the level of complexity of structures we would call cells. Though each level of complexity may add little bits and pieces here and there, it would take a very long time and very specific conditions.”
The pre-cell structure that you are imagining is simple only because you choose to imagine that way. Unless someone actually produces a pre-cell, there is no way of know how simple it is (or was).
“Anyway, the best theorized chain of succession I've seen would be: atoms -> organic molecules -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> archaea/bacteria -> eukarote. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me, but it is tentative.”
If you thought about it critically, this pathway would seem far-fetched to you. There is very little actual scientific evidence to support this pathway. Most of the chemistry associated with this pathway is generated through words like “emerge” and “configuration.” Nice ideas, but not science. The truth is no one has a clue how cells and their complex chemistry came into existence. Not scientists, not Christians, no one. If think you have any more certainty in your knowledge of how cells came about (than Ben, for example), I think you are mistaken.
“Unfortunately you can't see molecules in the fossil record, which would give us a great deal of information, although as our technology becomes more sophisticated, we may eventually be able to extract that information from the earth.”
Are you speculating that the intermediates of abiogenesis are sequestered under the earth somewhere?
oh wow... i do not know where to begin, real life caught up to me for a day and then this thing explodes... ah well - i will try to keep up a little.
------------------------------------
GCT: "and really because I don't believe as you do - then I must hate Xians. Do you know how bigotted that is?" ----> No, it's because you hate the person we model ourselves after (although you do not believe He existed) as well as post day after day slanderous and offensive things about us. not to mention the "what christians look like" picture on the right side of the screen. i mean, that's not bigotry, that's just logic.
"I suggest that you complain to them instead of me on that score." -----> i was not actually complaining to you; i was sympathizing...
"Thank you for reducing a civil rights issue to the level of high school cliques. I'm glad that you can be so cavalier about the unequal treatment of your fellow citizens." ----> you are equal, however outnumbered... and therefore it makes sense for you to enlarge your "clique" to change the balance of things, i get it. just do not make it a civil right argument because that is so unfounded. people have choices, just because they do not agree with you does not mean you are being wrongly treated. i can agree about the money thing and even the pledge, maybe it should not be there... but realistically, it's not the true issue.
"As for metabolism I will first point out that you've dodged the questions about your explanations and why you think that goddidit is a satisfactory answer." --------> okay, here is my stance, it is VERY similar to yours... simply because God is a property of this universe. He simply created it. just like your belief of motion and life being infused with things that were pre-existent. there is FAITH that must be built behind the beginning. to say "it's an emergent property" is simply saying "i don't know" in a different vernacular. and you know what, I don't know how God did it -- but I just believe it. just as you "JUST BELIEVE" everything just happened to be the way it started. you cannot try and act like it is superior logic - it is just as flawed and humanistic as mine.
Why would you make such an absurd statement? Are you trying to make the absurd argument that reason can only come from god - thus trying to argue that only through unreason and illogical arguments (irrationality) can we arrive at rationality? ------> No... I am simply saying that life and everything we know is as meaningless as we perceive it to be. perception is a fickle thing. with God in the picture, there is an absolute value. without, there is no absolute, but rather billions of people's sliding scales of value to juggle.
i am liking the debate, lets keep it friendly though, hopefully my tone has come across that way! -------------------
and finally Tyler: "The Christ character is, by and large, a fuckin' asshole, and the bible belt's certainly got plenty of those. Of course, it's got plenty of nice people too, but that's true pretty much anywhere ya go, eh?" -------> Christ is absolutely not what you have described him. He is pervasive, powerful, and loving. the people that claim to emulate him may be those things, however they do Him an injustice by acting contrarily to His character. I have no clue why you would say something so unfounded.
Ben, "No, it's because you hate the person we model ourselves after (although you do not believe He existed) as well as post day after day slanderous and offensive things about us."
I already pointed out, you can't hate something you don't believe exists, so right there goes your rationale for saying that I hate Xians, which isn't true anyway. And, these "slanderous and offensive things about us" crap...where is it? The simple fact is that you're acting on your own biases and imparting them to me. The maligning going on here isn't going from me to you, but the other way around. And, just like Leo you don't get to simply make accusations and then fail to back them up hoping that no one will notice.
"i was not actually complaining to you; i was sympathizing..."
What, that others don't share your interpretations of the Bible? Perhaps you can debate Leo and Celestial Teapot on what exactly a true Xian is? I'd open up a thread just for that!
"you are equal, however outnumbered..."
That gives you no license to trample my rights. One of the functions of government is to protect the rights of the minority from being curtailed by the majority.
"just do not make it a civil right argument because that is so unfounded."
It is a civil rights issue when inequalities exist. I've already pointed out some specific examples.
"simply because God is a property of this universe. He simply created it."
Evidence for your god please? This is no different than saying humptred is a property of this universe and is responsible for our universe coming about. Further, if god is a property of this universe, then how did god create the universe? Doesn't this run smack into the problem that something can't create itself?
"just like your belief of motion and life being infused with things that were pre-existent."
What in the world are you talking about here?
"there is FAITH that must be built behind the beginning."
Wrong. There is no faith required in my position.
"to say "it's an emergent property" is simply saying "i don't know" in a different vernacular."
Um, no, it's saying that it's part of how the universe works.
"and you know what, I don't know how God did it -- but I just believe it. just as you "JUST BELIEVE" everything just happened to be the way it started. you cannot try and act like it is superior logic - it is just as flawed and humanistic as mine."
Well, you are half right, and I'm glad that you admit that your logic is flawed and that you rely on faith. My logic, however, comes from empirical observation of the universe and is built on logic and reason. Sorry, but there's no equivalency here. One side has evidence (mine) one does not. One side relies on reason (mine) while one relies on faith. Sorry, but you lose on this one and your own words convict your argument as the irrational one that should be discarded.
"I am simply saying that life and everything we know is as meaningless as we perceive it to be."
Or meaningful as we perceive it and reason it to be.
"with God in the picture, there is an absolute value."
This does not logically follow at all (non sequitor). Whether we give meaning to our own lives or god does is no different. Simply because god is mightier doesn't mean that what he decides is of value has some sort of absolute value. How would one measure this value anyway?
"without, there is no absolute, but rather billions of people's sliding scales of value to juggle."
There's no absolute either way. We could all choose to follow god's judgement, but that wouldn't make it absolute. Further, we also have tools, like logic and reason to decide on such things.
"i am liking the debate, lets keep it friendly though, hopefully my tone has come across that way!"
Then I suggest you stop making accusations that you can't back up, because that is not "friendly."
"I have no clue why you would say something so unfounded."
Not to speak for Tyler, but for myself I would say it's because Jesus is depicted in the Bible (it never really happened, but the literary character can be discussed of course) as a hard-ass (anger is the same as murder?) who doesn't understand morality, invents the idea of hell, treats people as inferior, does absurd things like curse fig trees that don't bear fruit out of season, physically attacks people with weapons, and etc.
alright man... looks like this is not something you are being open-minded about. i have not accused you of anything - just noted examples that are clearly posted on this site -- sorry i did not break it down into specifics, but take your pic. fictional or not, you hate Jesus --> therefore you hate Christians.
i thought that i might have a decent conversation with you, as i do with my many atheist and agnostic friends frequently, but i guess you do not trust me as they do. there is a way to disagree without being so crass and bludgeoning as you.
in spectrum of knowledge and science there is in excess of trillions of trillions of details; being the human I am, I decide to accept the fact that I will probably never even know 10% of this knowledge (and experience/witness even less of it in action). therefore i make the logical decision to trust other means to bridge those gaps: philosophy, psychology, religion, pragmatism, personal relationships, etc. i am not refuting science - in fact, i embrace it. but i do not consider it better or more reliable than the others in the spectrum of knowledge. that is really the difference between you and me.
to use your word - you are too much of a bigot with your beliefs to remove your preconceived notions about Christians.
Ben: and finally Tyler: "The Christ character is, by and large, a fuckin' asshole, and the bible belt's certainly got plenty of those. Of course, it's got plenty of nice people too, but that's true pretty much anywhere ya go, eh?" -------> Christ is absolutely not what you have described him.
The Christ character, according to popular mythology, was a liar, a hypocrite, and, best of all, condemned most people to unimaginable torment for eternity. I call that a fuckin' asshole.
Ben: He is pervasive, powerful, and loving.
Uhm, no, he is a mythical entity. He has no more power than the millions of superstitious nitwits like yourself give him (which is the only reason "he" is so pervasive), and to call him loving is about as laughable as saying a refrigerator keeps things warm.
Ben: the people that claim to emulate him may be those things, however they do Him an injustice by acting contrarily to His character.
His character is one of an egomaniacal schizophrenic. Being humble and sane is the only way to do injustice to such a character. And you see that as a problem.
Comical.
Ben: I have no clue why you would say something so unfounded.
"Lots of things have never been observed outside of a laboratory. Are you going to deny all of them as well?"
List some of these things, and let's see where you stand on them. Or were you just making a large statement that had no foundation?
Tyler, you've read too many websites, and not enough of the actual Bible. Yes, Jesus was strict. So was my grandpa. Both were also very loving, which was the REASON for their strictness.
Ben, "alright man... looks like this is not something you are being open-minded about."
Hold on. You come in here blasting me about how I'm hateful and hate Xians, and I'm not open minded?
"i have not accused you of anything - just noted examples that are clearly posted on this site"
You have made accusations but you have not provided examples. You complained about one picture, which I didn't even put up. And, even so, it's humor.
"or not, you hate Jesus --> therefore you hate Christians."
What part of "You can't actually hate something you don't believe exists" are you not getting? Or do you not understand the word "hyperbole?" It's actually impossible to hate Jesus since Jesus is a fictional character. Even if I could hate Jesus, it's a non sequitor to conclude that that means that I hate all Xians.
"i thought that i might have a decent conversation with you, as i do with my many atheist and agnostic friends frequently, but i guess you do not trust me as they do. there is a way to disagree without being so crass and bludgeoning as you."
What do you expect when you come in guns blazing, making accusations and throwing around stereotypes? And, if simply answering your questions and posting objections is "crass and bludgeoning," then I suggest you grow some thicker skin. If you can't take criticism of your beliefs, then that's something you should work on. And, I'm glad that you have atheist and agnostic friends...just like the guy who can't be racist because he has a black friend, right?
"I decide to accept the fact that I will probably never even know 10% of this knowledge (and experience/witness even less of it in action)."
That doesn't mean you should wallow in ignorance and enjoy it.
"therefore i make the logical decision to trust other means to bridge those gaps: philosophy, psychology, religion, pragmatism, personal relationships, etc."
Which are all based themselves on empirical knowledge.
"i am not refuting science - in fact, i embrace it."
I disagree. Your "conclusion" that goddidit in regards to the universe is rather unscientific.
"but i do not consider it better or more reliable than the others in the spectrum of knowledge."
Empirical study is the only method we truly have of obtaining knowledge. If you know of any other method, please elucidate us all.
"hat is really the difference between you and me."
No, the difference is that you seem not to know where knowledge comes from and are willing to rely on faith. I am not. You have to provide a reason why I should believe as you do if you think I should.
"to use your word - you are too much of a bigot with your beliefs to remove your preconceived notions about Christians."
Yeah, that must be it, because using logical argumentation to show why Xian beliefs are inconsistent and wrong is bigotted. Not being bigotted is decided that the mean atheist hates Xians because it conforms to some stereotype that you've already decided is true before you've even said the first thing. What are you, a second grader? Does the rubber/glue thing work with your college students (do you teach at Liberty or something?)
Leo, "List some of these things, and let's see where you stand on them. Or were you just making a large statement that had no foundation?"
How about sub-atomic particles or even atomic ones, like electrons? X-rays?
How about god...oh wait, god hasn't been observed in the laboratory either.
"Tyler, you've read too many websites, and not enough of the actual Bible. Yes, Jesus was strict. So was my grandpa. Both were also very loving, which was the REASON for their strictness."
Wow, did your grandpa create a torture room where he would put you for eternity for thinking bad thoughts? Have you actually read the Bible and not simply glossed over all the parts that you don't agree with? Do you think that becoming angry with someone is tantamount to murder and should be considered to be the same thing? Do you think people should be held accountable for thought crime? Do you think that it's sane to curse a fig tree for not bearing figs out of season? Do you think that doctors should only heal people after they prostrate themselves to the doctor and self-proclaim to be dogs? Do you think that it's OK to attack other people with weapons? Do you think that women who are beaten should have no recourse to divorce? Do I need to go on?
GCT: "i enjoy your perspective; i am minister to college students actually, and i like the honesty. " - that was the first thing i said...
"anyway, just a thought. i am EXTREMELY critical of christians so i see your frustration (because I have tons of frustration)." --- again what i said
I by no means came in here with "guns a'blazing".
so yes... you are being close minded, we disagree. i do not attack you, i simply say blunt facts. they are not accusations, they are facts. and you can hate a fable.. i understand hyperbole. you can dance around semantics all day, but by what you put up daily and by your responses it makes me think you hate Christians.
if you really feel that you are "simply answering questions" then I would advise that you learn how your words come across - they are full of sedition and slander (by your intention or not). i would suppose that it just does not sound good so you would like to label it otherwise.
Ben, You've got a point. Your first comment wasn't guns blazing...you saved it for your second comment. And, you'll note that I have not returned in kind this whole time. The closest you could say is that I've called you out on your stereotypical views of atheists.
"so yes... you are being close minded, we disagree."
I fail to see how I'm being closed minded. I have yet to lash out at you as you have at me, yet you continually claim that is what is happening. Have I made accusations that aren't backed up about you? No. Have you done that to me? Yes.
"i do not attack you, i simply say blunt facts. they are not accusations, they are facts."
Ah, so your opinions of what I hate and what I don't hate, based on nothing more than your own biases, are blunt facts now?
"and you can hate a fable.."
Not in the sense you are using for one. Secondly, we aren't talking about hating a fable, but hating a character in a fable.
"i understand hyperbole."
You have not demonstrated as much.
"you can dance around semantics all day, but by what you put up daily and by your responses it makes me think you hate Christians."
Who is arguing semantics? Tell me, do you think it is possible to actually hate Darth Vader? And, if you do, does it mean that you hate all Star Wars fans?
"if you really feel that you are "simply answering questions" then I would advise that you learn how your words come across - they are full of sedition and slander (by your intention or not)."
Sedition and slander? Really? Do you even know what those words mean? I don't think you do, which is why I included the hyperlinks. I defy you to find any instances of those things on these pages. Good luck. Until then, I would suggest that you be more careful about levying charges against people, especially when you continually claim that you aren't doing that.
"i would suppose that it just does not sound good so you would like to label it otherwise."
And, I would suggest that you avail yourself of some classes at the college where you supposedly minister and actually learn something about what you are accusing others of. And, do you really minister to college students? I highly doubt it.
Have you noticed GCT, that people don't feel Robert Madewell is rude and crass, but they do feel that way about you? How do you explain this? You say it's bigotry against you, however, shouldn't that same bigotry be shown towards Mr. Madewell?
The difference is how you present your views. You do you just lay out facts, but rather try to browbeat others into believing you. If someone says something against you, you immediately accuse them of being too dumb to understand your statements, which is simply untrue. You do indeed have much anger against Christians. If anyone, you are the bigot here.
Whatever Leo. You're free to engage in your stereotypes, but what you read into a straight up unemotional argument is what you bring into it. If you say that god exists, and I challenge you to provide evidence, then you turn around and call me a meanie and all that, that's your fault, not mine. Just because I don't sit around and say, "Oh gee, I wish I could believe in god, please help me," or, "Gee, you've got a great viewpoint," when you don't, doesn't mean anything. It's the words and the arguments that matter. If you can't handle talking directly about the arguments and have to have your hand caressed in order not to be upset and start making accusations about hate and all that, then it's because you are bringing your prejudicial stereotypes into it. Further, I doubt that you'd spend so much time on Robert's blog if you didn't think you might be able to convert him back, and you would have a much lower opinion of him.
I think the chances of he or you being converted are equal actually. The reason I spend more time there is because he will actually have a discussion instead of constantly trying to insult people's intelligence or education.
"If you say that god exists, and I challenge you to provide evidence, then you turn around and call me a meanie and all that"
That's the same thing most atheists do, and you are one of only 3 I've spoken with who were downright mean-spirited.
just to point out my original statement -- it is also funny how useless your views are. yes, you may get "God" taken off the dollar bill; you may get even less public schools to say the pledge; you may even get crazier stuff done than that to infringe on other people's right to worship (or the right to be ignorant for that matter). but in the end - big deal... you made people jump through some hoops.
the fact is, it does not matter. if you are right about God, then another thing will pop up in Christianity's place that may or may not be worse in your eyes. this so called "progress" that you are aiming for will get you nowhere. if you somehow slay the "beast" that is Christianity and unveil the man behind the curtain to the world you will still be dis-satisfied with your life and seek to tear something else down.
and if you are wrong about God and you still do these things you have just convinced the world that your vapid existence is more worthy than a religious person's. either way - pointless.
the thing is "despite all your rage, your are still just a rat in a cage." yours and my own views on life cannot speak anything into reality. yours and my own perception of life cannot control reality. what is, is. stop being such a busy-body and complaining. or - likewise to me - stop responding to this inane blog and get on with my busy life. but who knows if we will follow that...
"it is also funny how useless your views are...but in the end - big deal"
Yes, how kind of you to think that equal rights is useless and not a big deal. To some of us, equality is a big deal and we will work towards that end. Of course, I'm sure you would find it a much bigger deal if you lived in a Muslim dominated nation and it was your religion being suppressed.
"you may even get crazier stuff done than that to infringe on other people's right to worship"
I'm not seeking to infringe on anyone's rights to worship - with the proviso that someone's form of worship does not invade the rights of others.
"if you are right about God, then another thing will pop up in Christianity's place that may or may not be worse in your eyes."
Another what thing? If people were to think and act in accordance with reason and rational thinking, that would be better in many ways. We wouldn't waste energy fighting over whose god is better for just one.
"this so called "progress" that you are aiming for will get you nowhere."
You're pretty pessimistic, which makes me wonder if there isn't some projection going on.
"...you will still be dis-satisfied with your life and seek to tear something else down."
Thanks for the pop psychology, but you don't know anything about me beyond that I write for a blog about atheism. I'm quite satisfied with my life, thank you very much, even if I do see some areas for improvement. Simply because I do see potential for improvement doesn't mean I'm unhappy (which BTW, just happens to be one more stereotype about atheists from you...)
"and if you are wrong about God and you still do these things you have just convinced the world that your vapid existence is more worthy than a religious person's. either way - pointless."
Vapid existence? Again, you know nothing about me. OTOH, how many times do you get to insult me before I get to claim that you must be unhappy with life, angry, and live a vapid existence? If I were to do any of those things, you would fly into a righteous rage, as you've already shown over much less.
And, no, truth is not pointless.
"the thing is "despite all your rage, your are still just a rat in a cage.""
Ah, yes, Smashing Pumpkins...but I'm not the one hurling insults.
"yours and my own views on life cannot speak anything into reality."
Exactly! Thank you for that. Reality does not conform to your beliefs.
"what is, is."
Exactly. Stop trying to insert your god into everything.
"stop being such a busy-body and complaining."
I'm sorry that pointing out why Xianity is inconsistent and logical false as well as void of evidence is considered being a busy-body and "complaining." I'm sorry that pointing out inequality also qualifies as both of those. We should all suffer inequality and irrationality in silence, right? Or, do you just mean that atheists should?
"...stop responding to this inane blog and get on with my busy life."
How about we make a deal. When you can provide evidence for your god, then you can call this blog inane.
Of course, in a sense it is ridiculous that in this day and age we do have to dedicate blogs to pointing out the inane superstition that is Xianity.
GCT said, "Yes, how kind of you to think that equal rights is useless and not a big deal. To some of us, equality is a big deal and we will work towards that end. Of course, I'm sure you would find it a much bigger deal if you lived in a Muslim dominated nation and it was your religion being suppressed."
First off, this is not an equal rights situation. You argue that you have less rights because people wouldn't vote for you if you ran for office. There are thousands of people I wouldn't vote for if they ran for office. Doesn't mean they have less rights, but they just aren't qualified for the job. Same goes for you. No discrimination going on here. I doubt the families in this country and others who have experienced TRUE unequal rights would take kindly to you comparing your "plight" with theirs.
Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there.
BTW, I like the last sentence. You finally realize that your position is a religion opposed to our religion.
Ah, B.J. My guess is that's Ben Joiner - one helluva flaming troll of a christian.
Leo: No discrimination going on here.
No thanks, Leo. Not in the market for any bridges.
Leo: Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there.
Leo"BTW, I like the last sentence. You finally realize that your position is a religion opposed to our religion." The "Of course, I'm sure you would" sentence? GCT was trying to form an example that would reflect your own life. If using analogy makes atheism a religion, then...virtually everything's a religion. Hurrah! Tax-exempt status for everyone! Go analogy! Woo!
Let's say your child was on an organ transplant list, and happened to have another medical issue that may or may not affect his health later in life. In a world based sctrictly on rationality, the donor board may say, "I'm sorry, but the next person on the list has a better chance of survival."
Rationality eliminates emotion. Emotion clouds decisions and causes people to do irrational things. While Christendom has been the perpetuator of many atrocities, just as many have been performed by those who believed they were acting strictly out of rationality.
Leo"Let's say your child was on an organ transplant list, and happened to have another medical issue that may or may not affect his health later in life. In a world based sctrictly on rationality, the donor board may say, 'I'm sorry, but the next person on the list has a better chance of survival.'" The thing about getting rationally screwed is that it's objective. Imagine instead getting turned down because your kid's name was Marvin or he was born on a Tuesday.
"Rationality eliminates emotion. Emotion clouds decisions and causes people to do irrational things." Okay, now you're arguing for rationality.
"While Christendom has been the perpetuator of many atrocities, just as many have been performed by those who believed they were acting strictly out of rationality." If you're using the examples I think your using, emphasis on "believe".
Leo: Let's say your child was on an organ transplant list, and happened to have another medical issue that may or may not affect his health later in life. In a world based sctrictly on rationality, the donor board may say, "I'm sorry, but the next person on the list has a better chance of survival."
So what? Sometimes rational decisions are unpleasant. What, you think garbage collectors go to work every day because they can't get enough of the aroma of a trash can full of shitty diapers and rotting food? Of course not. They go to work because, rationally speaking, it pays their bills.
That doesn't mean all things rational are unpleasant, which is what you're suggesting.
Leo: Rationality eliminates emotion.
Patently ridiculous. That's right up there with your idiotic contention that "secular morality" is an oxymoron.
Leo: Emotion clouds decisions and causes people to do irrational things.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. What does this have to do with your claim that a world based solely on rationality would be unlikable?
Leo: While Christendom has been the perpetuator of many atrocities, just as many have been performed by those who believed they were acting strictly out of rationality.
Now you're just off in your own little world, making statements that have nothing to do with the claim you're supposed to be supporting...
"If you're using the examples I think your using, emphasis on "believe"."
That's all you can ever do. Rationality is not always black and white. Someone has to decide what carries weight and what doesn't in the gray areas.
It's amusing how you are so accepting of, "Well, my child got screwed by rationality." If this situation were real, you would not be so accepting. You would scream, "He might live! We don't know that he would die young!"
Tyler"That was classic..." That's me. Classic. If I was a girl, I'd be rubenesque.
Leo"That's all you can ever do. Rationality is not always black and white. Someone has to decide what carries weight and what doesn't in the gray areas." And clouding that with, say, religion helps how? That's just giving someone else's decisions more weight because he was smart enough to put "And the Lord said to Moses..." in front of it.
"It's amusing how you are so accepting of, 'Well, my child got screwed by rationality.'" I'm not. You're not listening. I'm saying that avoiding rationality is worse.
"Same goes for you. No discrimination going on here."
Actually, it is discrimination when people won't vote for an atheist simply because she is an atheist. It is not enshrined in law, however, which is why I point out the other aspects, like your god on our currency, etc, which you so conveniently (for you) ignore.
"I doubt the families in this country and others who have experienced TRUE unequal rights would take kindly to you comparing your "plight" with theirs."
Some have had it worse, I've never said differently, and I support them as well. And, yes, some would sneer at others who haven't had it as bad, but so what? Unequal is unequal no matter the degree and who is receiving.
"BTW, I like the last sentence. You finally realize that your position is a religion opposed to our religion."
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby. Sorry, but your worn out canard doesn't work.
you confuse "civil rights" with "civil luxuries." i do hope that you stop using this because getting your people in office is not something intrinsically something that EVERYONE can get - therefore it is not a right.
secondarily - you also need to choose one or the other, either a righteous blog to gain rights for your beliefs or a simple blog that points out the so-called stupidity of another group - that is, because the two harm each other.
you never saw MLK proclaiming on the corner that "white people are dumb, yall, look how they don't agree with us!" actually, if he did anything of the sort it would hurt his cause. so, how did the civil rights movement see it's goal? legal recourse and dang simple hard work and patience.
so when you consistently through out demoralizing "facts" that you perceive then it subverts your goals. so it makes sense to choose one and not the other, they do not compliment one another. it's a simple case of 'wanting your cake and eating it too'... whatever the heck that means...
----------------
also, i apologize to you if i came off as angry - i really am not. i have been a little too unemotional actually and that is why my words have been so blunt.
Leo: It's amusing how you are so accepting of, "Well, my child got screwed by rationality."
It's not like I'd have any choice in the matter, and the fact that you would find such a situation amusing just goes to show how much of a contemptible prick you really are.
Leo: If this situation were real, you would not be so accepting.
Again, no choice in the matter. On the same token, one wonders why you are so accepting of an allegedly all powerful, all loving god who would screw you and your child in such a way.
GCT said, "Actually, it is discrimination when people won't vote for an atheist simply because she is an atheist."
No, that is a choice. The fact that she is an atheist tells me that she doesn't have this country's original goals as her personal goals, and therefore she is unqualified for the job.Same as if a Communist ran for president. I wouldn't vote for them because they were a communist. That's not discrimination against communists. It's choosing what I think it best, and America is based on everyone's right to do so. If atheists weren't allowed to vote, then you'd have a legitimate beef.
GCT also said, "It is not enshrined in law, however, which is why I point out the other aspects, like your god on our currency, etc, which you so conveniently (for you) ignore."
Not ignoring it. It's a non-issue. Our country was founded with faith in God and in recognition that it is only by Him we have the right to our freedoms. Not to acknowledge Him would be the crime.
Leo, "Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there."
I should add that this is a straw man. No one is advocating a world purely bound by logic/reason a la some sort of Vulcan society from Star Trek. What I (and others) are advocating for is the use of logic and reason to inform our decisions in matters of philosophy and public policy to name just a few.
"No, that is a choice."
Um, no, that's the very definition of discrimination:
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"
"The fact that she is an atheist tells me that she doesn't have this country's original goals as her personal goals, and therefore she is unqualified for the job."
What you mean to say is that she doesn't share your moral code, so therefore you won't vote for her because you want to force your moral code on others. That, and you seem to be very confused about the history of this country and how/why it was founded.
"Not ignoring it. It's a non-issue."
It's a non-issue when your faith is foisted on others in contradiction to the first amendment? I'm sure you wouldn't be so blase about it if our currency had some homage to Allah.
"Our country was founded with faith in God and in recognition that it is only by Him we have the right to our freedoms."
Oh really? Show me where in the Constitution it says that. When you can't will you admit that you are wrong here? (I'm betting on no - that no amount of evidence, common sense, or anything else will sway you from your beliefs, which is what I was talking about above. It would be better if people could realize that their beliefs don't shape reality and act in accordance with reality instead of simply grabbing onto specific beliefs and asking the world to change to fit them.)
BJ, "you confuse "civil rights" with "civil luxuries." i do hope that you stop using this because getting your people in office is not something intrinsically something that EVERYONE can get - therefore it is not a right."
The ability to run on a level playing surface is a right actually. Do you really think that discrimination is OK? Do you hate all minorities or just those that don't agree with your religious beliefs?
"secondarily - you also need to choose one or the other, either a righteous blog to gain rights for your beliefs or a simple blog that points out the so-called stupidity of another group - that is, because the two harm each other."
I don't agree at all. I can point out why Xianity doesn't make sense while also asking others to use reason, logic, and rationality, and still have room to ask others not to be discriminatory and to strive for true equality. It's not an either/or proposition. (Stop concern trolling.)
"you never saw MLK proclaiming on the corner that "white people are dumb, yall, look how they don't agree with us!" actually, if he did anything of the sort it would hurt his cause. so, how did the civil rights movement see it's goal? legal recourse and dang simple hard work and patience."
I'm not saying Xians are stupid. I'm saying that Xianity is inconsistent and doesn't make logical sense and that it is an irrational belief system. Some Xians are stupid just as some atheists are. Some Xians are also brilliant as some atheists are. If you can't see the difference between criticizing beliefs vs. criticizing people, then I suggest you learn instead of taking everything as an insult.
Secondly, it depends on what you mean by "patience." If those who worked for civil rights had been too patient, they would have sat back and not done anything, just as some people counseled. In fact, their actions were seen as rebellious and radical, and not patient at all. Further, let's not forget that freethinkers have always been on the forefront to help others gain their civil rights, while Xians for the most part have been dragged kicking and screaming into equality.
"so when you consistently through out demoralizing "facts" that you perceive then it subverts your goals."
I'm sorry that it's demoralizing to you that reality has a decidedly non-Xian bias, but I would question why you think your beliefs trump reality.
"it's a simple case of 'wanting your cake and eating it too'... whatever the heck that means..."
The saying means that you can't literally have a piece of cake in front of you if you've eaten it. I had wondered about that same saying for a long time, so a while ago I looked it up.
"also, i apologize to you if i came off as angry - i really am not. i have been a little too unemotional actually and that is why my words have been so blunt."
Thank you. Perhaps you can see things from my side as well, now. Bluntness is not the same as anger, as you may realize now. Don't assume that the atheist must be angry, even if the atheist is rather blunt.
It is not the bluntness that made me think you were angry, but the accusations. Accusatory tones have that effect. I accept your declaration that you aren't angry and I say, "Let's move on."
"Um, no, that's the very definition of discrimination:"
So would you vote for a professed Muslim to run our country? A Communist? A Pastor? If the answer to any of these is no then you are the pot calling the kettle black.
"Show me where in the Constitution it says that. When you can't will you admit that you are wrong here?"
Interesting you didn't bring up the Declaration of Independence. Why is that? It's because it does mention God and his gift of freedom. This is a nation founded by Christian men. Yes, there were some that were merely "deists" but the VAST majority were devout Christians.
Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the signature section is labeled with "...day of our Lord..." They acknowledged that even the day belonged to God.
Leo, "So would you vote for a professed Muslim to run our country? A Communist? A Pastor? If the answer to any of these is no then you are the pot calling the kettle black."
I would if they were able to run the country, would run it in a secular way as is required by the Constitution, and I agreed with their policies. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. I voted for Obama, who just so happens to be a Xian, in case you didn't notice.
"Interesting you didn't bring up the Declaration of Independence. Why is that?"
Because, as Modus said, it's not a founding document of the US. It has no legal case here. Further, the founders added clauses to god in order to further the propaganda. It seems that TJ never even mentioned god in the first draft.
"This is a nation founded by Christian men. Yes, there were some that were merely "deists" but the VAST majority were devout Christians."
The vast majority of people in the nation were Xians, yes, just as they are the majority today, but so what? That has no bearing on what actually happened and how the laws of this secular nation are set up. Yes, some Xians tried to push for a Xian nation, but they ultimately lost the debate to the deists who argued for a secular nation. It is what prompted Xians at the time to deride the Constitution as an atheist document.
Matt, "Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the signature section is labeled with "...day of our Lord..." They acknowledged that even the day belonged to God."
Which happens to be the ONLY reference to any sort of god and was the convention of the time in Xian communities for labelling the date. Big deal. It also plainly states that no religious test shall be required of anyone in a public capacity and enshrines our right to be free from religion in the very first amendment in the bill of rights. I'm still not seeing how Xianity is the basis of our nation. And, I'm wondering why the Xians of the time didn't seem to think so when they derided the Constitution as an atheist document.
TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathers, so it's no surprise it wasn't in his first draft. However, he wasn't able to keep it this way because the rest of our founding fathers wouldn't allow it.
So, "the day of our Lord" was ok because it was the convention of the time, but "In Got We Trust" doesn't apply in the same way?
I've heard the claim that the Constitution was "derided as an atheist document" many times. I haven't seen any actual quotes from the founding fathers saying this. Citation please.
"Obama, who just so happens to be a Xian"
By some definition of Christian maybe. However, I think it'd be easy to argue that his "church" was very anti-Christian in it's stance on our nation. I'm not surprised you voted for him.
The only statements that make one "free from religion" as you put it are actually statements making one free from any state-appointed denomination. It's a safe bet that had it not been for the actions of Constantine, these statements would never have appeared. Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all.
Leo, "TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathers..."
Along with Madison, Franklin, Washington, Paine, etc. etc. etc.
"However, he wasn't able to keep it this way because the rest of our founding fathers wouldn't allow it."
Actually, it was more like they were afraid that the common people wouldn't accept it (they would be seen as elitists that didn't speak for the common person). Oh, the parallels with today!
"So, "the day of our Lord" was ok because it was the convention of the time, but "In Got We Trust" doesn't apply in the same way?"
Actually, it's not OK, but it doesn't support what you contend that it does. And, no "In Got (sic) We Trust" is not even close to being the same thing, and no, it's not all right.
"I've heard the claim that the Constitution was "derided as an atheist document" many times. I haven't seen any actual quotes from the founding fathers saying this. Citation please."
Oh, and there's also the Treaty of Tripoli which specifically states that the US is 'in no way a Xian nation.'
"By some definition of Christian maybe."
I'm sure he's not Scottish either, right? Oh wait, you probably think he's not American.
"However, I think it'd be easy to argue that his "church" was very anti-Christian in it's stance on our nation."
How so?
"Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all."
Rubbish. Without freedom to worship or not as one pleases, then we don't actually have true freedom. This thought didn't come from Xianity, but from the Enlightenment philosophy that the founding fathers were, thankfully, very well versed in and enamored of.
Leo"...but 'In Got We Trust' doesn't apply in the same way?" I'm sure that the Founding Fathers were quite worried about not being able to rally the troops to defend the country from the insidious threat of International Communism®. The earlier motto was better anyway, and less divisive.
"Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all." And on a side note, the Second Amendment makes gun ownership mandatory.
Ah, I love references to "a writer" "a delegate" and other such specific citings. Did your own skeptical mind not throw up a red flag when there is not a single name mentioned in that claim?
We're not discussing modern folks, because there's someone with every possible opinion out there today. You were claiming that a large number of people thought this when the document was written, and I simply asked for evidence.
Leo, "We're not discussing modern folks, because there's someone with every possible opinion out there today. You were claiming that a large number of people thought this when the document was written, and I simply asked for evidence."
Yes, and this "modern folk" provides the names that you asked for (i.e. the evidence that you asked for). I'm guessing that you didn't even bother looking at it. I sort of figured that you'd like it too, since it's a modern day person who is a Xian (you would probably say not a True Xian though) who also sees the Constitution as a godless document and is upset by it (probably a dominionist).
Earlier in this discussion there was some issue with the fact of atheist being discriminated against. In most part it is simple to live as an atheist [or to hold any other belief] as long as you are not asked whether or not you go to church, believe in god and so on... but GCT made a point about running for office and other high profile jobs that may require you to disclose this information. I wanted to add a link to show atheist discrimination in action to better prove the point that it does exist and not only for people running for office.
I know that the point of this discussion has varied and shifted focus several times so I am simply trying to give some perspective on one aspect of subject matter that had been broached.
It isn't like those folks weren't offered service at all. It was a DISCOUNT they were refused. That judge oughta have his head examined. It's the old "If you didn't bring enough for the whole class...." scenario. I'd be on board if they were refused equal service or something, but simply not qualifying for a discount? Gimme a break.
75 comments:
I've got a better one. The more you watch this the funnier it is. Well, to me anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJI9xDUYV8
i enjoy your perspective; i am minister to college students actually, and i like the honesty.
but have you ever seen those websites that are devoted to "hating" one particular thing? like votefortheworst.com for american idol or survivorsucks for survivor. like, in the end i really have trouble believing that they truly dislike those shows. sometimes they watch them with more intensity and veracity than the casual fan.
in the same way i see that with sites like yours. i guess you could respond with "this nation is just over-run with these idiot religious freaks and i just have to speak up" -- but that is so un-true; christians are being fazed out day by day. hedonism is the new dominant religion.
anyway, just a thought. i am EXTREMELY critical of christians so i see your frustration (because I have tons of frustration). but why rest and focus in something that seems so stupid.
if you have told people that they have wasted their time on something a few times, why keep on doing it?
ps. just want your input: if life truly came from a single cell organism; where did this single cell get the power to reproduce itself?
Ben,
"but have you ever seen those websites that are devoted to "hating" one particular thing?"
BTW, the blog title is hyperbole - you can't actually hate something you don't believe exists.
"christians are being fazed out day by day. hedonism is the new dominant religion."
We must not live in the same country?
"i am EXTREMELY critical of christians"
Aren't you one?
"if you have told people that they have wasted their time on something a few times, why keep on doing it?"
Because of a few reasons:
1) This is not like saying American Idol sucks. American Idol is a TV show, this is about rights and identity of a minority that people think it is right to vilify.
2) One of the tactics used by apologists is to make this very argument in order to get atheists to try and be quiet. It's a tactic to shut us up. I say that we should be loud and speak up until equality is achieved and people actually start using reason to think.
"ps. just want your input: if life truly came from a single cell organism; where did this single cell get the power to reproduce itself?"
It seems to be an emergent property. Why do you think that goddidit? What evidence do you have for that proposition?
ps. just want your input: if life truly came from a single cell organism; where did this single cell get the power to reproduce itself?
From chemical reactions in the cell.. the same way our cells reproduce. It's called metabolism.
hey again--
"BTW, the blog title is hyperbole - you can't actually hate something you don't believe exists."
--> i figured, that's obvious, your hate rests on Christians and that was more what I was pointing out - we do exist therefore it makes sense.
"We must not live in the same country?"
--> yes we do live in the same country. i live in the bible belt's capital really -- and the people who actually act like Christ are few and far between even here. yes, there may be a dominant "religion" but it really functions as a lame social club.
"Aren't you one?"
--> Christian that is... and YES. that does not mean that I cannot have a HIGH expectation of the model that is poorly applied in churches and american culture.
"One of the tactics used by apologists is to make this very argument in order to get atheists to try and be quiet. It's a tactic to shut us up. I say that we should be loud and speak up until equality is achieved and people actually start using reason to think."
--> alright man... i do not mind if you keep talking, shouting, etc... but once again -- it just seems like a waste of time. i really do not see how atheists are unequal in any manner or form. you have equal rights and ability to make your own decisions as much as anyone else.
but to the same effect, reason is worthless in a world of chemical reactions. why does it matter? who care if people think the same way as you. i mean, if you just want friends who think like you, then i guess that makes sense.
"It seems to be an emergent property. Why do you think that goddidit? What evidence do you have for that proposition?"
--> okay, yes, this reproductive property did come later (obviously) - but that does not explain how chemical reactions and reproduction became part of that cell's being.
observing natural science, things are not moved by themselves; all of a sudden a chemical reaction pops up for no reason? and why do chemicals even react to one another?
"From chemical reactions in the cell.. the same way our cells reproduce. It's called metabolism."
--> well, it's really the same question. where did it get this property? also, with metabolism comes catabolism - which breaks things down. which would seemingly destroy a single cell.
Ben - They think they are persecuted somehow in our society. Then when you say that they go, "I never said that!" Rather than actually try to earn their way to this (already existent) equality, they are determined to villify Christians. It's true what they say: There are two ways to become a leader; either earn your way there or step on the heads of others to get there. GCT has decided to try option #2.
Ben,
"i figured, that's obvious, your hate rests on Christians and that was more what I was pointing out - we do exist therefore it makes sense."
Ah, I see. So, because I use arguments to point out why belief in god is unfounded and illogical and because I'm adamant about my rights as a citizen of this country (and as a human being) - and really because I don't believe as you do - then I must hate Xians. Do you know how bigotted that is?
"yes we do live in the same country. i live in the bible belt's capital really -- and the people who actually act like Christ are few and far between even here."
And, what does that tell you about the transformative power of Jebus? You can make excuses all day long for it, but the stark reality is that Xians are no more or less moral than any other segment of the population. Oh, and it's a no true scotsman argument BTW, as I'm sure your interpretation of being "Christ-like" will differ than other people's interpretations and will just happen to fit those people you approve of.
I would also point out the hyper-Xianized part of our culture that automatically regards everything connected to Xianity as good and everything else as suspect, where people can make crazy comments about the war on Xmas and be respected, etc. If you don't think our culture is biased towards Xianity, then you're living in denial.
"Christian that is... and YES. that does not mean that I cannot have a HIGH expectation of the model that is poorly applied in churches and american culture."
I suggest that you complain to them instead of me on that score.
"i really do not see how atheists are unequal in any manner or form. you have equal rights and ability to make your own decisions as much as anyone else."
Yeah, I have the same right to pay for things with your god on my money, to pledge allegiance to my country and your god at the same time, to not get voted into office because I don't share your god belief, to be able to be fired from my job for not believing in your god. These are issues of rights and inequality. I could also mention that the 2 acceptable prejudices in this country are prejudice against gays and atheists. Neither is morally acceptable.
"but to the same effect, reason is worthless in a world of chemical reactions. why does it matter?"
Why would you make such an absurd statement? Are you trying to make the absurd argument that reason can only come from god - thus trying to argue that only through unreason and illogical arguments (irrationality) can we arrive at rationality?
"i mean, if you just want friends who think like you, then i guess that makes sense."
Thank you for reducing a civil rights issue to the level of high school cliques. I'm glad that you can be so cavalier about the unequal treatment of your fellow citizens.
As for metabolism I will first point out that you've dodged the questions about your explanations and why you think that goddidit is a satisfactory answer. It is not and you can't defend it, so your tactic is to deny that any answer we have will work so that we will simply default to your answer. Yet, that's not how it works. Even if we had no clue how any of this happens, it would still be inappropriate to claim goddidit was a satisfactory answer.
Now, to answer the question, it seems to be a trademark of how these chemical reactions work. It simply is a property of the physical world.
Leo,
Where is this vilification?
Secondly, unequal rights is not the same as persecution. I suggest you actually look up the definitions some time. Of course, you could just continue to spout nonsense and talk about things that you really don't understand. I see you've chosen option 2 for most of the comments you've made, so why stop now?
"Rather than actually try to earn their way to this (already existent) equality..."
How does one "earn" equal rights? Do we have to be beaten by police officers during peaceful marches? Haven't we learned anything from all the civil rights movements of the last century?
Oh wait, it seems we haven't, since Xians have been at the forefront of unequal rights since the founding of the colonies here in the States. I would suggest that you actually look up the history of these things in our country, but that would require you to forego option 2 again, so I doubt you'll do it, and instead come back with "Dr. King was religious" or "Wilberforce was religious," or some other inanity.
and why do chemicals even react to one another?
Hi Ben,
To answer this very simple question, chemicals react due to their characteristics.
However, I find it interesting that you would display such an incredible lack of knowledge in the very topic you're demanding answers for.
I recommend checking out your local college or university, which will surely have classes on basic chemistry (so you can understand why, when, and how chemicals react with each other) and basic biology (which will likely be a pre-requisite to organic chemistry).
Once you have a basic understanding of the chemistry of the universe and of planet earth, we can go from there. This is not an attempt to be an elitist, but some things are too complicated to be learned from scratch in blog comment threads.
You've got to crawl before you can walk.
ethineethine,
I think Ben has a pretty good question here. How did the cellular components necessary for cell division arise?
Metabolism? Chemical reactions? These seem like pretty simplistic responses. Could you be a bit more specific here? You seem to suggest that you have a very sophisticated answer in your back pocket, but you're not going to cast your pearls before swine. What would be your answer to a highly educated nonporcine guy like yourself?
(Yes, yes, GCT, whatever ethinethine comes up with here is far and away better than goddidit. Could we give that conditioned response a rest for a moment? I would still like to hear what ethinethine has to say.)
Ben: ... the people who actually act like Christ are few and far between even here.
The Christ character is, by and large, a fuckin' asshole, and the bible belt's certainly got plenty of those. Of course, it's got plenty of nice people too, but that's true pretty much anywhere ya go, eh?
Ben: ... reason is worthless in a world of chemical reactions.
Because...?
"to not get voted into office because I don't share your god belief, to be able to be fired from my job for not believing in your god."
And how is it my fault as a Christian that you don't get elected?
And how exactly could you be fired from your job by not believing in God?
BTW, witholding rights from someone is a form of persecution. Believe me, I understand it quite well.
I believe you misunderstand Ben's point here. Showing gaps is not a way to automatically insert God into them as atheists often claim. The only reason the gaps get pointed out is to show you that you are believing by faith as well and not rationality as you claim.
Leo,
"And how is it my fault as a Christian that you don't get elected?"
Because you and your Xian buddies are prejudiced and wouldn't vote for a non-Xian - which has wider implications on our culture which we shouldn't go into on a blog comment thread. Also, some states still have laws on the books that prohibit atheists from office, although I bet they would be overturned or ignored if one could get into a position to actually be elected.
"And how exactly could you be fired from your job by not believing in God?"
People have come under fire for being atheist just recently, like Hemant Mehta. Others have been fired, etc for not being Xian. It happens, and one could argue that it's not against the law.
"BTW, witholding rights from someone is a form of persecution. Believe me, I understand it quite well."
No, you don't.
"I believe you misunderstand Ben's point here. Showing gaps is not a way to automatically insert God into them as atheists often claim."
You mean as theists often claim, since this is a tactic that theists use often to try and argue for god.
"The only reason the gaps get pointed out is to show you that you are believing by faith as well and not rationality as you claim."
No, that is not the only reason, and it doesn't even serve that purpose. I don't hold a faith position here - I hold to the best available evidence. If you consider that to be "faith" and conflate it with the "faith" that you have for god, then you are either very confused or not arguing in good faith (no pun intended).
Hi Celestial Teapot,
The structures where the emergent property was self-replication are called replicating polymers. The property emerges from a different chemical configuration from the previous structures of polymers (covalently bonded macromolecules) to the new configuration.
As far as is hypothesized, the new configuration of polymers resulted in nucleotides, the structural units of RNA. Some RNA molecules, called ribozymes, are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis. What is important about this is that it does not take a leap of faith: synthesized ribozymes have been observed self-replicating under lab conditions.
From there, a cell membrane would eventually be an emergent property (by the protobiont stage), as either a specific mix of chemicals that would help ensure the survival of the cell-like structure or a surrounding of sediment. The nucleus and membrane-bound nucleus would come much later. The survival of structures at each level of complexity is entirely dependent on the effectiveness of its configuration (much like a chemical form of natural selection).
What is important to understand is just how chemically simple these pre-cell structures are. Though obviously they are more complex than macromolecules, molecules, and atoms, they would have nowhere near the level of complexity of structures we would call cells. Though each level of complexity may add little bits and pieces here and there, it would take a very long time and very specific conditions.
Anyway, the best theorized chain of succession I've seen would be: atoms -> organic molecules -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> archaea/bacteria -> eukarote. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me, but it is tentative. Unfortunately you can't see molecules in the fossil record, which would give us a great deal of information, although as our technology becomes more sophisticated, we may eventually be able to extract that information from the earth.
Oh, one thing I wanted to add, 3 hours later...
Many of those steps, from chemicals to protobionts, may or may not be considered "alive", depending on which criteria used to determine what's alive (personally, I use 5 characteristics to define life, but other definitions may be even more restrictive).
Just pointing it out because it's interesting to me. Most people don't really know the criteria for determining life, so they may see a replicating polymer (or alternatively, a virus) and erroneously think it's alive.
ethinethin,
“The structures where the emergent property was self-replication are called replicating polymers.”
Any guess as to the identity of those replicating polymers? To my knowledge no one has ever observed polymers of any kind self-replicating in an experiment. How would self-replicating polymers “emerge” from non-replicating polymers? “Emerge” implies “evolve.”You can’t evolve unless you have a means to replicate, and further you need a means to make changes in the polymer analogous to mutations in DNA in order to select variants.
“The property emerges from a different chemical configuration from the previous structures of polymers (covalently bonded macromolecules) to the new configuration.”
Again, the word “emerge” here substitutes for any known chemistry that could confer the property of self-replication on a non-replicating polymer. “New configuration” similarly has no meaning in terms of known chemistry. What is the “old configuration?” The reason you can’t be more specific here is that the polymers you speak of have only been speculated to exist. You can speculate all you want about the configuration of hypothetical polymers. Real polymers aren’t quite so adaptable.
"As far as is hypothesized, the new configuration of polymers resulted in nucleotides, the structural units of RNA. Some RNA molecules, called ribozymes, are capable of catalyzing their own synthesis. What is important about this is that it does not take a leap of faith: synthesized ribozymes have been observed self-replicating under lab conditions."
I don’t have a problem with ribozymes synthesizing RNA. However, I question the chemistry that gave rise to nucleotides that compose the ribozyme. Is there nothing more to say about this than a “new configuration of polymers resulted in nucleotides?” I think these pearls need a bit more polishing.
From there, a cell membrane would eventually be an emergent property (by the protobiont stage), as either a specific mix of chemicals that would help ensure the survival of the cell-like structure or a surrounding of sediment. The nucleus and membrane-bound nucleus would come much later. The survival of structures at each level of complexity is entirely dependent on the effectiveness of its configuration (much like a chemical form of natural selection).
“Emergent property” here again has no real meaning. A cell membrane is quite a complicated structure and requires very complex intracellular machinery to synthesize and maintain it. It doesn’t just self-assemble when you mix lipid with clay. You can use simple language to describe it in order to make it appear simple to produce, but that just makes a simple story. If you believe it, it is not because science supports that belief. Again, how do you make progressive stepwise changes in “configurations” so that selection occurs?
“What is important to understand is just how chemically simple these pre-cell structures are. Though obviously they are more complex than macromolecules, molecules, and atoms, they would have nowhere near the level of complexity of structures we would call cells. Though each level of complexity may add little bits and pieces here and there, it would take a very long time and very specific conditions.”
The pre-cell structure that you are imagining is simple only because you choose to imagine that way. Unless someone actually produces a pre-cell, there is no way of know how simple it is (or was).
ethinethin,
“Anyway, the best theorized chain of succession I've seen would be: atoms -> organic molecules -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> archaea/bacteria -> eukarote. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me, but it is tentative.”
If you thought about it critically, this pathway would seem far-fetched to you. There is very little actual scientific evidence to support this pathway. Most of the chemistry associated with this pathway is generated through words like “emerge” and “configuration.” Nice ideas, but not science. The truth is no one has a clue how cells and their complex chemistry came into existence. Not scientists, not Christians, no one. If think you have any more certainty in your knowledge of how cells came about (than Ben, for example), I think you are mistaken.
“Unfortunately you can't see molecules in the fossil record, which would give us a great deal of information, although as our technology becomes more sophisticated, we may eventually be able to extract that information from the earth.”
Are you speculating that the intermediates of abiogenesis are sequestered under the earth somewhere?
oh wow... i do not know where to begin, real life caught up to me for a day and then this thing explodes... ah well - i will try to keep up a little.
------------------------------------
GCT: "and really because I don't believe as you do - then I must hate Xians. Do you know how bigotted that is?" ----> No, it's because you hate the person we model ourselves after (although you do not believe He existed) as well as post day after day slanderous and offensive things about us. not to mention the "what christians look like" picture on the right side of the screen. i mean, that's not bigotry, that's just logic.
"I suggest that you complain to them instead of me on that score."
-----> i was not actually complaining to you; i was sympathizing...
"Thank you for reducing a civil rights issue to the level of high school cliques. I'm glad that you can be so cavalier about the unequal treatment of your fellow citizens." ----> you are equal, however outnumbered... and therefore it makes sense for you to enlarge your "clique" to change the balance of things, i get it. just do not make it a civil right argument because that is so unfounded. people have choices, just because they do not agree with you does not mean you are being wrongly treated. i can agree about the money thing and even the pledge, maybe it should not be there... but realistically, it's not the true issue.
"As for metabolism I will first point out that you've dodged the questions about your explanations and why you think that goddidit is a satisfactory answer." --------> okay, here is my stance, it is VERY similar to yours... simply because God is a property of this universe. He simply created it. just like your belief of motion and life being infused with things that were pre-existent. there is FAITH that must be built behind the beginning. to say "it's an emergent property" is simply saying "i don't know" in a different vernacular. and you know what, I don't know how God did it -- but I just believe it. just as you "JUST BELIEVE" everything just happened to be the way it started. you cannot try and act like it is superior logic - it is just as flawed and humanistic as mine.
Why would you make such an absurd statement? Are you trying to make the absurd argument that reason can only come from god - thus trying to argue that only through unreason and illogical arguments (irrationality) can we arrive at rationality? ------> No... I am simply saying that life and everything we know is as meaningless as we perceive it to be. perception is a fickle thing. with God in the picture, there is an absolute value. without, there is no absolute, but rather billions of people's sliding scales of value to juggle.
i am liking the debate, lets keep it friendly though, hopefully my tone has come across that way!
-------------------
and finally Tyler:
"The Christ character is, by and large, a fuckin' asshole, and the bible belt's certainly got plenty of those. Of course, it's got plenty of nice people too, but that's true pretty much anywhere ya go, eh?" -------> Christ is absolutely not what you have described him. He is pervasive, powerful, and loving. the people that claim to emulate him may be those things, however they do Him an injustice by acting contrarily to His character. I have no clue why you would say something so unfounded.
"synthesized ribozymes have been observed self-replicating under lab conditions."
For me, it falls apart right there. This has never been observed anywhere outside of a laboratory.
Ben,
"No, it's because you hate the person we model ourselves after (although you do not believe He existed) as well as post day after day slanderous and offensive things about us."
I already pointed out, you can't hate something you don't believe exists, so right there goes your rationale for saying that I hate Xians, which isn't true anyway. And, these "slanderous and offensive things about us" crap...where is it? The simple fact is that you're acting on your own biases and imparting them to me. The maligning going on here isn't going from me to you, but the other way around. And, just like Leo you don't get to simply make accusations and then fail to back them up hoping that no one will notice.
"i was not actually complaining to you; i was sympathizing..."
What, that others don't share your interpretations of the Bible? Perhaps you can debate Leo and Celestial Teapot on what exactly a true Xian is? I'd open up a thread just for that!
"you are equal, however outnumbered..."
That gives you no license to trample my rights. One of the functions of government is to protect the rights of the minority from being curtailed by the majority.
"just do not make it a civil right argument because that is so unfounded."
It is a civil rights issue when inequalities exist. I've already pointed out some specific examples.
"simply because God is a property of this universe. He simply created it."
Evidence for your god please? This is no different than saying humptred is a property of this universe and is responsible for our universe coming about. Further, if god is a property of this universe, then how did god create the universe? Doesn't this run smack into the problem that something can't create itself?
"just like your belief of motion and life being infused with things that were pre-existent."
What in the world are you talking about here?
"there is FAITH that must be built behind the beginning."
Wrong. There is no faith required in my position.
"to say "it's an emergent property" is simply saying "i don't know" in a different vernacular."
Um, no, it's saying that it's part of how the universe works.
"and you know what, I don't know how God did it -- but I just believe it. just as you "JUST BELIEVE" everything just happened to be the way it started. you cannot try and act like it is superior logic - it is just as flawed and humanistic as mine."
Well, you are half right, and I'm glad that you admit that your logic is flawed and that you rely on faith. My logic, however, comes from empirical observation of the universe and is built on logic and reason. Sorry, but there's no equivalency here. One side has evidence (mine) one does not. One side relies on reason (mine) while one relies on faith. Sorry, but you lose on this one and your own words convict your argument as the irrational one that should be discarded.
Ben,
Comment continued...
"I am simply saying that life and everything we know is as meaningless as we perceive it to be."
Or meaningful as we perceive it and reason it to be.
"with God in the picture, there is an absolute value."
This does not logically follow at all (non sequitor). Whether we give meaning to our own lives or god does is no different. Simply because god is mightier doesn't mean that what he decides is of value has some sort of absolute value. How would one measure this value anyway?
"without, there is no absolute, but rather billions of people's sliding scales of value to juggle."
There's no absolute either way. We could all choose to follow god's judgement, but that wouldn't make it absolute. Further, we also have tools, like logic and reason to decide on such things.
"i am liking the debate, lets keep it friendly though, hopefully my tone has come across that way!"
Then I suggest you stop making accusations that you can't back up, because that is not "friendly."
"I have no clue why you would say something so unfounded."
Not to speak for Tyler, but for myself I would say it's because Jesus is depicted in the Bible (it never really happened, but the literary character can be discussed of course) as a hard-ass (anger is the same as murder?) who doesn't understand morality, invents the idea of hell, treats people as inferior, does absurd things like curse fig trees that don't bear fruit out of season, physically attacks people with weapons, and etc.
Leo,
"For me, it falls apart right there. This has never been observed anywhere outside of a laboratory."
Lots of things have never been observed outside of a laboratory. Are you going to deny all of them as well?
alright man... looks like this is not something you are being open-minded about. i have not accused you of anything - just noted examples that are clearly posted on this site -- sorry i did not break it down into specifics, but take your pic. fictional or not, you hate Jesus --> therefore you hate Christians.
i thought that i might have a decent conversation with you, as i do with my many atheist and agnostic friends frequently, but i guess you do not trust me as they do. there is a way to disagree without being so crass and bludgeoning as you.
in spectrum of knowledge and science there is in excess of trillions of trillions of details; being the human I am, I decide to accept the fact that I will probably never even know 10% of this knowledge (and experience/witness even less of it in action). therefore i make the logical decision to trust other means to bridge those gaps: philosophy, psychology, religion, pragmatism, personal relationships, etc. i am not refuting science - in fact, i embrace it. but i do not consider it better or more reliable than the others in the spectrum of knowledge. that is really the difference between you and me.
to use your word - you are too much of a bigot with your beliefs to remove your preconceived notions about Christians.
Ben: and finally Tyler:
"The Christ character is, by and large, a fuckin' asshole, and the bible belt's certainly got plenty of those. Of course, it's got plenty of nice people too, but that's true pretty much anywhere ya go, eh?" -------> Christ is absolutely not what you have described him.
The Christ character, according to popular mythology, was a liar, a hypocrite, and, best of all, condemned most people to unimaginable torment for eternity. I call that a fuckin' asshole.
Ben: He is pervasive, powerful, and loving.
Uhm, no, he is a mythical entity. He has no more power than the millions of superstitious nitwits like yourself give him (which is the only reason "he" is so pervasive), and to call him loving is about as laughable as saying a refrigerator keeps things warm.
Ben: the people that claim to emulate him may be those things, however they do Him an injustice by acting contrarily to His character.
His character is one of an egomaniacal schizophrenic. Being humble and sane is the only way to do injustice to such a character. And you see that as a problem.
Comical.
Ben: I have no clue why you would say something so unfounded.
Now there's some fuckin' irony for ya.
Ben: i have not accused you of anything...
Ben, later in the same paragraph: ... you hate Christians.
Can't even get through one paragraph without contradicting yourself. Much like your imaginary friend, Christ.
"Lots of things have never been observed outside of a laboratory. Are you going to deny all of them as well?"
List some of these things, and let's see where you stand on them. Or were you just making a large statement that had no foundation?
Tyler, you've read too many websites, and not enough of the actual Bible. Yes, Jesus was strict. So was my grandpa. Both were also very loving, which was the REASON for their strictness.
Ben,
"alright man... looks like this is not something you are being open-minded about."
Hold on. You come in here blasting me about how I'm hateful and hate Xians, and I'm not open minded?
"i have not accused you of anything - just noted examples that are clearly posted on this site"
You have made accusations but you have not provided examples. You complained about one picture, which I didn't even put up. And, even so, it's humor.
"or not, you hate Jesus --> therefore you hate Christians."
What part of "You can't actually hate something you don't believe exists" are you not getting? Or do you not understand the word "hyperbole?" It's actually impossible to hate Jesus since Jesus is a fictional character. Even if I could hate Jesus, it's a non sequitor to conclude that that means that I hate all Xians.
"i thought that i might have a decent conversation with you, as i do with my many atheist and agnostic friends frequently, but i guess you do not trust me as they do. there is a way to disagree without being so crass and bludgeoning as you."
What do you expect when you come in guns blazing, making accusations and throwing around stereotypes? And, if simply answering your questions and posting objections is "crass and bludgeoning," then I suggest you grow some thicker skin. If you can't take criticism of your beliefs, then that's something you should work on. And, I'm glad that you have atheist and agnostic friends...just like the guy who can't be racist because he has a black friend, right?
"I decide to accept the fact that I will probably never even know 10% of this knowledge (and experience/witness even less of it in action)."
That doesn't mean you should wallow in ignorance and enjoy it.
"therefore i make the logical decision to trust other means to bridge those gaps: philosophy, psychology, religion, pragmatism, personal relationships, etc."
Which are all based themselves on empirical knowledge.
"i am not refuting science - in fact, i embrace it."
I disagree. Your "conclusion" that goddidit in regards to the universe is rather unscientific.
"but i do not consider it better or more reliable than the others in the spectrum of knowledge."
Empirical study is the only method we truly have of obtaining knowledge. If you know of any other method, please elucidate us all.
"hat is really the difference between you and me."
No, the difference is that you seem not to know where knowledge comes from and are willing to rely on faith. I am not. You have to provide a reason why I should believe as you do if you think I should.
"to use your word - you are too much of a bigot with your beliefs to remove your preconceived notions about Christians."
Yeah, that must be it, because using logical argumentation to show why Xian beliefs are inconsistent and wrong is bigotted. Not being bigotted is decided that the mean atheist hates Xians because it conforms to some stereotype that you've already decided is true before you've even said the first thing. What are you, a second grader? Does the rubber/glue thing work with your college students (do you teach at Liberty or something?)
Leo,
"List some of these things, and let's see where you stand on them. Or were you just making a large statement that had no foundation?"
How about sub-atomic particles or even atomic ones, like electrons? X-rays?
How about god...oh wait, god hasn't been observed in the laboratory either.
"Tyler, you've read too many websites, and not enough of the actual Bible. Yes, Jesus was strict. So was my grandpa. Both were also very loving, which was the REASON for their strictness."
Wow, did your grandpa create a torture room where he would put you for eternity for thinking bad thoughts? Have you actually read the Bible and not simply glossed over all the parts that you don't agree with? Do you think that becoming angry with someone is tantamount to murder and should be considered to be the same thing? Do you think people should be held accountable for thought crime? Do you think that it's sane to curse a fig tree for not bearing figs out of season? Do you think that doctors should only heal people after they prostrate themselves to the doctor and self-proclaim to be dogs? Do you think that it's OK to attack other people with weapons? Do you think that women who are beaten should have no recourse to divorce? Do I need to go on?
GCT:
"i enjoy your perspective; i am minister to college students actually, and i like the honesty. " - that was the first thing i said...
"anyway, just a thought. i am EXTREMELY critical of christians so i see your frustration (because I have tons of frustration)." --- again what i said
I by no means came in here with "guns a'blazing".
so yes... you are being close minded, we disagree. i do not attack you, i simply say blunt facts. they are not accusations, they are facts. and you can hate a fable.. i understand hyperbole. you can dance around semantics all day, but by what you put up daily and by your responses it makes me think you hate Christians.
if you really feel that you are "simply answering questions" then I would advise that you learn how your words come across - they are full of sedition and slander (by your intention or not). i would suppose that it just does not sound good so you would like to label it otherwise.
Ben,
You've got a point. Your first comment wasn't guns blazing...you saved it for your second comment. And, you'll note that I have not returned in kind this whole time. The closest you could say is that I've called you out on your stereotypical views of atheists.
"so yes... you are being close minded, we disagree."
I fail to see how I'm being closed minded. I have yet to lash out at you as you have at me, yet you continually claim that is what is happening. Have I made accusations that aren't backed up about you? No. Have you done that to me? Yes.
"i do not attack you, i simply say blunt facts. they are not accusations, they are facts."
Ah, so your opinions of what I hate and what I don't hate, based on nothing more than your own biases, are blunt facts now?
"and you can hate a fable.."
Not in the sense you are using for one. Secondly, we aren't talking about hating a fable, but hating a character in a fable.
"i understand hyperbole."
You have not demonstrated as much.
"you can dance around semantics all day, but by what you put up daily and by your responses it makes me think you hate Christians."
Who is arguing semantics? Tell me, do you think it is possible to actually hate Darth Vader? And, if you do, does it mean that you hate all Star Wars fans?
"if you really feel that you are "simply answering questions" then I would advise that you learn how your words come across - they are full of sedition and slander (by your intention or not)."
Sedition and slander? Really? Do you even know what those words mean? I don't think you do, which is why I included the hyperlinks. I defy you to find any instances of those things on these pages. Good luck. Until then, I would suggest that you be more careful about levying charges against people, especially when you continually claim that you aren't doing that.
"i would suppose that it just does not sound good so you would like to label it otherwise."
And, I would suggest that you avail yourself of some classes at the college where you supposedly minister and actually learn something about what you are accusing others of. And, do you really minister to college students? I highly doubt it.
Leo: Tyler, you've read too many websites, and not enough of the actual Bible.
Uhm, anything I've said about Jesus comes right from the bible.
Leo: Yes, Jesus was strict.
That's like saying Einstein was smart.
Leo: So was my grandpa.
Did your grandpa ever advocate throwing people into an eternal fire for not bowing down to him?
Didn't think so...
Leo: Both were also very loving, which was the REASON for their strictness.
You have a strange definition of "loving" there, Sparky.
you're right.
Have you noticed GCT, that people don't feel Robert Madewell is rude and crass, but they do feel that way about you? How do you explain this? You say it's bigotry against you, however, shouldn't that same bigotry be shown towards Mr. Madewell?
The difference is how you present your views. You do you just lay out facts, but rather try to browbeat others into believing you. If someone says something against you, you immediately accuse them of being too dumb to understand your statements, which is simply untrue. You do indeed have much anger against Christians. If anyone, you are the bigot here.
Whatever Leo. You're free to engage in your stereotypes, but what you read into a straight up unemotional argument is what you bring into it. If you say that god exists, and I challenge you to provide evidence, then you turn around and call me a meanie and all that, that's your fault, not mine. Just because I don't sit around and say, "Oh gee, I wish I could believe in god, please help me," or, "Gee, you've got a great viewpoint," when you don't, doesn't mean anything. It's the words and the arguments that matter. If you can't handle talking directly about the arguments and have to have your hand caressed in order not to be upset and start making accusations about hate and all that, then it's because you are bringing your prejudicial stereotypes into it. Further, I doubt that you'd spend so much time on Robert's blog if you didn't think you might be able to convert him back, and you would have a much lower opinion of him.
I think the chances of he or you being converted are equal actually. The reason I spend more time there is because he will actually have a discussion instead of constantly trying to insult people's intelligence or education.
"If you say that god exists, and I challenge you to provide evidence, then you turn around and call me a meanie and all that"
That's the same thing most atheists do, and you are one of only 3 I've spoken with who were downright mean-spirited.
Leo: ... he will actually have a discussion instead of constantly trying to insult people's intelligence or education.
In other words, Leo doesn't like the taste of his own medicine.
As if, further, there's a shred of intelligence in theism, let alone christianity, to be insulted.
Comical.
just to point out my original statement -- it is also funny how useless your views are. yes, you may get "God" taken off the dollar bill; you may get even less public schools to say the pledge; you may even get crazier stuff done than that to infringe on other people's right to worship (or the right to be ignorant for that matter). but in the end - big deal... you made people jump through some hoops.
the fact is, it does not matter. if you are right about God, then another thing will pop up in Christianity's place that may or may not be worse in your eyes. this so called "progress" that you are aiming for will get you nowhere. if you somehow slay the "beast" that is Christianity and unveil the man behind the curtain to the world you will still be dis-satisfied with your life and seek to tear something else down.
and if you are wrong about God and you still do these things you have just convinced the world that your vapid existence is more worthy than a religious person's. either way - pointless.
the thing is "despite all your rage, your are still just a rat in a cage." yours and my own views on life cannot speak anything into reality. yours and my own perception of life cannot control reality. what is, is. stop being such a busy-body and complaining. or - likewise to me - stop responding to this inane blog and get on with my busy life. but who knows if we will follow that...
I take it BJ, that you must also be Ben?
"it is also funny how useless your views are...but in the end - big deal"
Yes, how kind of you to think that equal rights is useless and not a big deal. To some of us, equality is a big deal and we will work towards that end. Of course, I'm sure you would find it a much bigger deal if you lived in a Muslim dominated nation and it was your religion being suppressed.
"you may even get crazier stuff done than that to infringe on other people's right to worship"
I'm not seeking to infringe on anyone's rights to worship - with the proviso that someone's form of worship does not invade the rights of others.
"if you are right about God, then another thing will pop up in Christianity's place that may or may not be worse in your eyes."
Another what thing? If people were to think and act in accordance with reason and rational thinking, that would be better in many ways. We wouldn't waste energy fighting over whose god is better for just one.
"this so called "progress" that you are aiming for will get you nowhere."
You're pretty pessimistic, which makes me wonder if there isn't some projection going on.
"...you will still be dis-satisfied with your life and seek to tear something else down."
Thanks for the pop psychology, but you don't know anything about me beyond that I write for a blog about atheism. I'm quite satisfied with my life, thank you very much, even if I do see some areas for improvement. Simply because I do see potential for improvement doesn't mean I'm unhappy (which BTW, just happens to be one more stereotype about atheists from you...)
"and if you are wrong about God and you still do these things you have just convinced the world that your vapid existence is more worthy than a religious person's. either way - pointless."
Vapid existence? Again, you know nothing about me. OTOH, how many times do you get to insult me before I get to claim that you must be unhappy with life, angry, and live a vapid existence? If I were to do any of those things, you would fly into a righteous rage, as you've already shown over much less.
And, no, truth is not pointless.
"the thing is "despite all your rage, your are still just a rat in a cage.""
Ah, yes, Smashing Pumpkins...but I'm not the one hurling insults.
"yours and my own views on life cannot speak anything into reality."
Exactly! Thank you for that. Reality does not conform to your beliefs.
"what is, is."
Exactly. Stop trying to insert your god into everything.
"stop being such a busy-body and complaining."
I'm sorry that pointing out why Xianity is inconsistent and logical false as well as void of evidence is considered being a busy-body and "complaining." I'm sorry that pointing out inequality also qualifies as both of those. We should all suffer inequality and irrationality in silence, right? Or, do you just mean that atheists should?
"...stop responding to this inane blog and get on with my busy life."
How about we make a deal. When you can provide evidence for your god, then you can call this blog inane.
Of course, in a sense it is ridiculous that in this day and age we do have to dedicate blogs to pointing out the inane superstition that is Xianity.
GCT said, "Yes, how kind of you to think that equal rights is useless and not a big deal. To some of us, equality is a big deal and we will work towards that end. Of course, I'm sure you would find it a much bigger deal if you lived in a Muslim dominated nation and it was your religion being suppressed."
First off, this is not an equal rights situation. You argue that you have less rights because people wouldn't vote for you if you ran for office. There are thousands of people I wouldn't vote for if they ran for office. Doesn't mean they have less rights, but they just aren't qualified for the job. Same goes for you. No discrimination going on here. I doubt the families in this country and others who have experienced TRUE unequal rights would take kindly to you comparing your "plight" with theirs.
Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there.
BTW, I like the last sentence. You finally realize that your position is a religion opposed to our religion.
Ah, B.J. My guess is that's Ben Joiner - one helluva flaming troll of a christian.
Leo: No discrimination going on here.
No thanks, Leo. Not in the market for any bridges.
Leo: Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there.
Because...?
Leo "BTW, I like the last sentence. You finally realize that your position is a religion opposed to our religion."
The "Of course, I'm sure you would" sentence? GCT was trying to form an example that would reflect your own life. If using analogy makes atheism a religion, then...virtually everything's a religion. Hurrah! Tax-exempt status for everyone! Go analogy! Woo!
"Because...?"
Let's say your child was on an organ transplant list, and happened to have another medical issue that may or may not affect his health later in life. In a world based sctrictly on rationality, the donor board may say, "I'm sorry, but the next person on the list has a better chance of survival."
Rationality eliminates emotion. Emotion clouds decisions and causes people to do irrational things. While Christendom has been the perpetuator of many atrocities, just as many have been performed by those who believed they were acting strictly out of rationality.
Leo "Let's say your child was on an organ transplant list, and happened to have another medical issue that may or may not affect his health later in life. In a world based sctrictly on rationality, the donor board may say, 'I'm sorry, but the next person on the list has a better chance of survival.'"
The thing about getting rationally screwed is that it's objective. Imagine instead getting turned down because your kid's name was Marvin or he was born on a Tuesday.
"Rationality eliminates emotion. Emotion clouds decisions and causes people to do irrational things."
Okay, now you're arguing for rationality.
"While Christendom has been the perpetuator of many atrocities, just as many have been performed by those who believed they were acting strictly out of rationality."
If you're using the examples I think your using, emphasis on "believe".
Leo: Let's say your child was on an organ transplant list, and happened to have another medical issue that may or may not affect his health later in life. In a world based sctrictly on rationality, the donor board may say, "I'm sorry, but the next person on the list has a better chance of survival."
So what? Sometimes rational decisions are unpleasant. What, you think garbage collectors go to work every day because they can't get enough of the aroma of a trash can full of shitty diapers and rotting food? Of course not. They go to work because, rationally speaking, it pays their bills.
That doesn't mean all things rational are unpleasant, which is what you're suggesting.
Leo: Rationality eliminates emotion.
Patently ridiculous. That's right up there with your idiotic contention that "secular morality" is an oxymoron.
Leo: Emotion clouds decisions and causes people to do irrational things.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. What does this have to do with your claim that a world based solely on rationality would be unlikable?
Leo: While Christendom has been the perpetuator of many atrocities, just as many have been performed by those who believed they were acting strictly out of rationality.
Now you're just off in your own little world, making statements that have nothing to do with the claim you're supposed to be supporting...
MO: Okay, now you're arguing for rationality.
That was classic...
"If you're using the examples I think your using, emphasis on "believe"."
That's all you can ever do. Rationality is not always black and white. Someone has to decide what carries weight and what doesn't in the gray areas.
It's amusing how you are so accepting of, "Well, my child got screwed by rationality." If this situation were real, you would not be so accepting. You would scream, "He might live! We don't know that he would die young!"
Be careful what you ask for...
Tyler "That was classic..."
That's me. Classic. If I was a girl, I'd be rubenesque.
Leo "That's all you can ever do. Rationality is not always black and white. Someone has to decide what carries weight and what doesn't in the gray areas."
And clouding that with, say, religion helps how? That's just giving someone else's decisions more weight because he was smart enough to put "And the Lord said to Moses..." in front of it.
"It's amusing how you are so accepting of, 'Well, my child got screwed by rationality.'"
I'm not. You're not listening. I'm saying that avoiding rationality is worse.
"Same goes for you. No discrimination going on here."
Actually, it is discrimination when people won't vote for an atheist simply because she is an atheist. It is not enshrined in law, however, which is why I point out the other aspects, like your god on our currency, etc, which you so conveniently (for you) ignore.
"I doubt the families in this country and others who have experienced TRUE unequal rights would take kindly to you comparing your "plight" with theirs."
Some have had it worse, I've never said differently, and I support them as well. And, yes, some would sneer at others who haven't had it as bad, but so what? Unequal is unequal no matter the degree and who is receiving.
"BTW, I like the last sentence. You finally realize that your position is a religion opposed to our religion."
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color and not collecting stamps is a hobby. Sorry, but your worn out canard doesn't work.
you confuse "civil rights" with "civil luxuries." i do hope that you stop using this because getting your people in office is not something intrinsically something that EVERYONE can get - therefore it is not a right.
secondarily - you also need to choose one or the other, either a righteous blog to gain rights for your beliefs or a simple blog that points out the so-called stupidity of another group - that is, because the two harm each other.
you never saw MLK proclaiming on the corner that "white people are dumb, yall, look how they don't agree with us!" actually, if he did anything of the sort it would hurt his cause. so, how did the civil rights movement see it's goal? legal recourse and dang simple hard work and patience.
so when you consistently through out demoralizing "facts" that you perceive then it subverts your goals. so it makes sense to choose one and not the other, they do not compliment one another. it's a simple case of 'wanting your cake and eating it too'... whatever the heck that means...
----------------
also, i apologize to you if i came off as angry - i really am not. i have been a little too unemotional actually and that is why my words have been so blunt.
Leo: It's amusing how you are so accepting of, "Well, my child got screwed by rationality."
It's not like I'd have any choice in the matter, and the fact that you would find such a situation amusing just goes to show how much of a contemptible prick you really are.
Leo: If this situation were real, you would not be so accepting.
Again, no choice in the matter. On the same token, one wonders why you are so accepting of an allegedly all powerful, all loving god who would screw you and your child in such a way.
GCT said, "Actually, it is discrimination when people won't vote for an atheist simply because she is an atheist."
No, that is a choice. The fact that she is an atheist tells me that she doesn't have this country's original goals as her personal goals, and therefore she is unqualified for the job.Same as if a Communist ran for president. I wouldn't vote for them because they were a communist. That's not discrimination against communists. It's choosing what I think it best, and America is based on everyone's right to do so. If atheists weren't allowed to vote, then you'd have a legitimate beef.
GCT also said, "It is not enshrined in law, however, which is why I point out the other aspects, like your god on our currency, etc, which you so conveniently (for you) ignore."
Not ignoring it. It's a non-issue. Our country was founded with faith in God and in recognition that it is only by Him we have the right to our freedoms. Not to acknowledge Him would be the crime.
Leo,
"Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there."
I should add that this is a straw man. No one is advocating a world purely bound by logic/reason a la some sort of Vulcan society from Star Trek. What I (and others) are advocating for is the use of logic and reason to inform our decisions in matters of philosophy and public policy to name just a few.
"No, that is a choice."
Um, no, that's the very definition of discrimination:
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"
"The fact that she is an atheist tells me that she doesn't have this country's original goals as her personal goals, and therefore she is unqualified for the job."
What you mean to say is that she doesn't share your moral code, so therefore you won't vote for her because you want to force your moral code on others. That, and you seem to be very confused about the history of this country and how/why it was founded.
"Not ignoring it. It's a non-issue."
It's a non-issue when your faith is foisted on others in contradiction to the first amendment? I'm sure you wouldn't be so blase about it if our currency had some homage to Allah.
"Our country was founded with faith in God and in recognition that it is only by Him we have the right to our freedoms."
Oh really? Show me where in the Constitution it says that. When you can't will you admit that you are wrong here? (I'm betting on no - that no amount of evidence, common sense, or anything else will sway you from your beliefs, which is what I was talking about above. It would be better if people could realize that their beliefs don't shape reality and act in accordance with reality instead of simply grabbing onto specific beliefs and asking the world to change to fit them.)
BJ,
"you confuse "civil rights" with "civil luxuries." i do hope that you stop using this because getting your people in office is not something intrinsically something that EVERYONE can get - therefore it is not a right."
The ability to run on a level playing surface is a right actually. Do you really think that discrimination is OK? Do you hate all minorities or just those that don't agree with your religious beliefs?
"secondarily - you also need to choose one or the other, either a righteous blog to gain rights for your beliefs or a simple blog that points out the so-called stupidity of another group - that is, because the two harm each other."
I don't agree at all. I can point out why Xianity doesn't make sense while also asking others to use reason, logic, and rationality, and still have room to ask others not to be discriminatory and to strive for true equality. It's not an either/or proposition. (Stop concern trolling.)
"you never saw MLK proclaiming on the corner that "white people are dumb, yall, look how they don't agree with us!" actually, if he did anything of the sort it would hurt his cause. so, how did the civil rights movement see it's goal? legal recourse and dang simple hard work and patience."
I'm not saying Xians are stupid. I'm saying that Xianity is inconsistent and doesn't make logical sense and that it is an irrational belief system. Some Xians are stupid just as some atheists are. Some Xians are also brilliant as some atheists are. If you can't see the difference between criticizing beliefs vs. criticizing people, then I suggest you learn instead of taking everything as an insult.
Secondly, it depends on what you mean by "patience." If those who worked for civil rights had been too patient, they would have sat back and not done anything, just as some people counseled. In fact, their actions were seen as rebellious and radical, and not patient at all. Further, let's not forget that freethinkers have always been on the forefront to help others gain their civil rights, while Xians for the most part have been dragged kicking and screaming into equality.
"so when you consistently through out demoralizing "facts" that you perceive then it subverts your goals."
I'm sorry that it's demoralizing to you that reality has a decidedly non-Xian bias, but I would question why you think your beliefs trump reality.
"it's a simple case of 'wanting your cake and eating it too'... whatever the heck that means..."
The saying means that you can't literally have a piece of cake in front of you if you've eaten it. I had wondered about that same saying for a long time, so a while ago I looked it up.
"also, i apologize to you if i came off as angry - i really am not. i have been a little too unemotional actually and that is why my words have been so blunt."
Thank you. Perhaps you can see things from my side as well, now. Bluntness is not the same as anger, as you may realize now. Don't assume that the atheist must be angry, even if the atheist is rather blunt.
It is not the bluntness that made me think you were angry, but the accusations. Accusatory tones have that effect. I accept your declaration that you aren't angry and I say, "Let's move on."
"Um, no, that's the very definition of discrimination:"
So would you vote for a professed Muslim to run our country? A Communist? A Pastor? If the answer to any of these is no then you are the pot calling the kettle black.
"Show me where in the Constitution it says that. When you can't will you admit that you are wrong here?"
Interesting you didn't bring up the Declaration of Independence. Why is that? It's because it does mention God and his gift of freedom. This is a nation founded by Christian men. Yes, there were some that were merely "deists" but the VAST majority were devout Christians.
Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the signature section is labeled with "...day of our Lord..." They acknowledged that even the day belonged to God.
Leo: The Declaration isn't the legal foundation of the US. It was a propaganda document.
Matt: It gets worse. They used Arabic numbers. Clearly, they were all secret Muslims.
Leo,
"So would you vote for a professed Muslim to run our country? A Communist? A Pastor? If the answer to any of these is no then you are the pot calling the kettle black."
I would if they were able to run the country, would run it in a secular way as is required by the Constitution, and I agreed with their policies. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. I voted for Obama, who just so happens to be a Xian, in case you didn't notice.
"Interesting you didn't bring up the Declaration of Independence. Why is that?"
Because, as Modus said, it's not a founding document of the US. It has no legal case here. Further, the founders added clauses to god in order to further the propaganda. It seems that TJ never even mentioned god in the first draft.
"This is a nation founded by Christian men. Yes, there were some that were merely "deists" but the VAST majority were devout Christians."
The vast majority of people in the nation were Xians, yes, just as they are the majority today, but so what? That has no bearing on what actually happened and how the laws of this secular nation are set up. Yes, some Xians tried to push for a Xian nation, but they ultimately lost the debate to the deists who argued for a secular nation. It is what prompted Xians at the time to deride the Constitution as an atheist document.
Matt,
"Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the signature section is labeled with "...day of our Lord..." They acknowledged that even the day belonged to God."
Which happens to be the ONLY reference to any sort of god and was the convention of the time in Xian communities for labelling the date. Big deal. It also plainly states that no religious test shall be required of anyone in a public capacity and enshrines our right to be free from religion in the very first amendment in the bill of rights. I'm still not seeing how Xianity is the basis of our nation. And, I'm wondering why the Xians of the time didn't seem to think so when they derided the Constitution as an atheist document.
TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathers, so it's no surprise it wasn't in his first draft. However, he wasn't able to keep it this way because the rest of our founding fathers wouldn't allow it.
So, "the day of our Lord" was ok because it was the convention of the time, but "In Got We Trust" doesn't apply in the same way?
I've heard the claim that the Constitution was "derided as an atheist document" many times. I haven't seen any actual quotes from the founding fathers saying this. Citation please.
"Obama, who just so happens to be a Xian"
By some definition of Christian maybe. However, I think it'd be easy to argue that his "church" was very anti-Christian in it's stance on our nation. I'm not surprised you voted for him.
The only statements that make one "free from religion" as you put it are actually statements making one free from any state-appointed denomination. It's a safe bet that had it not been for the actions of Constantine, these statements would never have appeared. Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all.
Leo,
"TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathers..."
Along with Madison, Franklin, Washington, Paine, etc. etc. etc.
"However, he wasn't able to keep it this way because the rest of our founding fathers wouldn't allow it."
Actually, it was more like they were afraid that the common people wouldn't accept it (they would be seen as elitists that didn't speak for the common person). Oh, the parallels with today!
"So, "the day of our Lord" was ok because it was the convention of the time, but "In Got We Trust" doesn't apply in the same way?"
Actually, it's not OK, but it doesn't support what you contend that it does. And, no "In Got (sic) We Trust" is not even close to being the same thing, and no, it's not all right.
"I've heard the claim that the Constitution was "derided as an atheist document" many times. I haven't seen any actual quotes from the founding fathers saying this. Citation please."
Start about halfway down page 42
Oh, and there's also the Treaty of Tripoli which specifically states that the US is 'in no way a Xian nation.'
"By some definition of Christian maybe."
I'm sure he's not Scottish either, right? Oh wait, you probably think he's not American.
"However, I think it'd be easy to argue that his "church" was very anti-Christian in it's stance on our nation."
How so?
"Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all."
Rubbish. Without freedom to worship or not as one pleases, then we don't actually have true freedom. This thought didn't come from Xianity, but from the Enlightenment philosophy that the founding fathers were, thankfully, very well versed in and enamored of.
Leo "...but 'In Got We Trust' doesn't apply in the same way?"
I'm sure that the Founding Fathers were quite worried about not being able to rally the troops to defend the country from the insidious threat of International Communism®.
The earlier motto was better anyway, and less divisive.
"Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all."
And on a side note, the Second Amendment makes gun ownership mandatory.
"Start about halfway down page 42"
Ah, I love references to "a writer" "a delegate" and other such specific citings. Did your own skeptical mind not throw up a red flag when there is not a single name mentioned in that claim?
Leo,
You want names?
I think you'll like that page. It's a modern person arguing that the Constitution is anti-god. It should be right up your alley.
We're not discussing modern folks, because there's someone with every possible opinion out there today. You were claiming that a large number of people thought this when the document was written, and I simply asked for evidence.
Leo,
"We're not discussing modern folks, because there's someone with every possible opinion out there today. You were claiming that a large number of people thought this when the document was written, and I simply asked for evidence."
Yes, and this "modern folk" provides the names that you asked for (i.e. the evidence that you asked for). I'm guessing that you didn't even bother looking at it. I sort of figured that you'd like it too, since it's a modern day person who is a Xian (you would probably say not a True Xian though) who also sees the Constitution as a godless document and is upset by it (probably a dominionist).
Earlier in this discussion there was some issue with the fact of atheist being discriminated against. In most part it is simple to live as an atheist [or to hold any other belief] as long as you are not asked whether or not you go to church, believe in god and so on... but GCT made a point about running for office and other high profile jobs that may require you to disclose this information. I wanted to add a link to show atheist discrimination in action to better prove the point that it does exist and not only for people running for office.
\Atheist Discrimination Lawsuit
I know that the point of this discussion has varied and shifted focus several times so I am simply trying to give some perspective on one aspect of subject matter that had been broached.
Thank you Sir Douglas. It's important to know about these types of things.
It isn't like those folks weren't offered service at all. It was a DISCOUNT they were refused. That judge oughta have his head examined. It's the old "If you didn't bring enough for the whole class...." scenario. I'd be on board if they were refused equal service or something, but simply not qualifying for a discount? Gimme a break.
So, not qualifying for a discount means it wasn't discrimination.
That's like saying it's not assault if someone only cuts your finger off instead of your whole arm.
You're a funny guy, Leo.
No, it's like saying a smoker can sue for discrimination because of a higher insurance rate.
Leo,
If you could preface your opinions with "IANAL" we'd appreciate it.
Only if you'll start with IIAF
Imperial Iranian Air Force?
Leo: No, it's like saying a smoker can sue for discrimination because of a higher insurance rate.
It's still discrimination, whether or not it's justifiable.
Very astute, Tyler. You're right. Maybe we need a different word for when it's justifiable. Never really thought about that before.
Post a Comment